RealGM

Garf wrote:Silly question: so the Knicks now must be able to match every theoretical offer for Lin with the Early Bird Exception? Arenas still applies? What would be the max contract?

The first-year salary of an offer sheet cannot be greater than the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, which this year is $5M. The original team can use either the NTMLE (if available) or the EBE to match.

The second-year salary equals the first-year salary plus 4.5%.

Today Houston offered Lin $5M in the first year and $5.225M in year two.

The third-year salary is limited by the maximum amount that the player would have been eligible to receive in that year. Since Lin was offered $14.898M, I'll assume that's what the league determined his maximum salary would be in 2014-15.

The CBA says that the players salary for any subsequent year can increase by no more than 4.1% of the third-year salary. Therefore, the most Lin could have been offered in year four would have been $15,508M.

That of course assumes that team offering Lin a max offer sheet has $10,158M in available cap room this year, the average of the $40,631M total of the four-year max offer sheet.

Dunkenstein wrote:The first-year salary of an offer sheet cannot be greater than the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, which this year is $5M. The original team can use either the NTMLE (if available) or the EBE to match.

Then what did the arbitration change? Only introduced an alternative way of matching, allowing the Knicks to become a tax-paying team by signing a couple of 50-year-olds to massive contracts?

Dunkenstein wrote:The third-year salary is limited by the maximum amount that the player would have been eligible to receive in that year. Since Lin was offered $14.898M, I'll assume that's what the league determined his maximum salary would be in 2014-15.

I think you're wrong and it's maximum year 3 salary (the he could have gotten if it wasn't for Arenas) plus two raises. Compare with Asik.

Garf wrote:
I think you're wrong and it's maximum year 3 salary (the he could have gotten if it wasn't for Arenas) plus two raises. Compare with Asik.

You're probably saying the same thing with Dunkenstein, and vice versa.

If 13.67 is the rounded off version of a max salary in year 1, then the max possible offer for yr 3 is the max he would have otherwise gotten if no restrictions were in place - ie, 13.67 + 9%, or 14.9.

Or, if being more precise, 13,668,750 x 1.09 = 14,898,937.

Dunkenstein is correct in noting that year 4 limit is a 4.1% raise over year 3 (15,509,793) rather than a 13.5% raise over the year 1 max of 13,668,750 (15,514,031).

Garf wrote:

Dunkenstein wrote:The first-year salary of an offer sheet cannot be greater than the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, which this year is $5M. The original team can use either the NTMLE (if available) or the EBE to match.

Then what did the arbitration change?

The arbitration had nothing to do with the allowable size of an offer sheet. It had to do with what cap exception a team has available to re-sign a player they claim from waivers (or amnesty-waivers).

Garf wrote:

Dunkenstein wrote:The first-year salary of an offer sheet cannot be greater than the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception, which this year is $5M. The original team can use either the NTMLE (if available) or the EBE to match.

Then what did the arbitration change? Only introduced an alternative way of matching, allowing the Knicks to become a tax-paying team by signing a couple of 50-year-olds to massive contracts?

Pretty much. Lucky them. The arbitration did however have a very significant impact re: Steve Novak, who got $15 million whereas he would have otherwise only been able to get pittance.

Sham wrote:Pretty much. Lucky them. The arbitration did however have a very significant impact re: Steve Novak, who got $15 million whereas he would have otherwise only been able to get pittance.

I know, right?

Btw, are you by any chance THE Sham of ShamSports.com?
If so, I'm a fan! Your work is amazing! Especially the alternative name for the Pistons

Yeah I am. Are you Gar Forman?

No no, my name is Daniel and I'm just a random guy doing enough nerdy stuff online (like this mathematical experiment my signature links to) to acknowledge and appreciate the amount of work maintaining your site must cost you! Thanks for that!

I knew you were Gar Forman. Hey Gar!

He's not Gar Forman. And I should know. I'm John Paxson. Or is it Jim Paxson. All I know is that I'm one of them. I'm so confused.

Sham wrote:I knew you were Gar Forman. Hey Gar!

Well, this is funny, I'm not sure how to prove I'm not someone I've never even heard of
Anyway, Garf is short from Garfield, my cartoony role model.

He's the GM of the Bulls. But you already know this because YOU ARE HIM.